Evanston Insurance Co. v. Legacy of Life, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 377

Legacy of Life, Inc. is an organ-donation charity.
Alvarez alleges Legacy misrepresented tissue distribution, claiming profits from selling deceased-mother tissues.
Alvarez sues Legacy seeking damages including mental anguish and restitution, asserting no physical injury to herself or mother.
Legacy had a combined medical professional and general liability policy with Evanston Insurance.
Evanston denied defense, leading to a declaratory-judgment action and two certified questions from the Fifth Circuit addressing policy coverage for personal injury and property damage.
The court resolves both questions in the negative, limiting Evanston’s duty to defend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does personal injury coverage include mental anguish absent physical injury?	Alvarez argues mental anguish fits under personal injury.	Evanston argues bodily injury must accompany mental anguish.	No; mental anguish without physical injury is not covered.
Does property damage coverage include loss of use of tissues?	Alvarez asserts loss of use of tissues falls under property damage.	Evanston contends tissues are not property; or loss of use not covered.	No; tissues are not property of the next of kin or estate for purposes of coverage.

Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.1997) (defines bodily injury; supports limited coverage for emotional distress without physical injury)
Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 939 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.1997) (eight corners rule; treat ambiguity in insured's favor)
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, Inc., 268 S.W.3d 487 (Tex.2008) (duty to defend analyzed via eight corners; interpretation of policy terms)
GuideOne Elite Ins. v. Fielder Rd. Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305 (Tex.2006) (ambiguous policy terms resolved in insured’s favor)
Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744 (Tex.2006) (interpretation of defined terms; favor insured when ambiguity)
Burnett v. Surratt, 67 S.W.2d 1042 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1934) (quasi-property rights in a dead body; burial-rights)
Terrill v. Harbin, 376 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1964) (right to possession of body; autopsy impacts)
Roman v. Roman, 193 S.W.3d 40 (Tex.App.-Houst. [1st Dist.] 2006) (embryos; disposition agreements; not determinative of property status)
Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal.3d 120, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) (no property interest in donated tissues)
Culpepper v. Pearl Street Bldg., Inc., 877 P.2d 877 (Colo. 1994) (tissues and bodily remains; quasi-property considerations)